Back
1958 Supreme(Ker) 212
Judges : VAIDIALINGAM
Parameswaran Asari Krishnan Asari - Appellant
Versus
Kunjali Lekshmi - Respondent
Case No : S. A. No. 593 of 1958
Decided On : 10/27/1958
Advocates Appeared :
C.K. Sivasankara Panicker; P. G. Parameswara Panicker; For Appellant D. Narayanan Potti; For 2nd Respondent
Appellate courts should independently consider the evidence and pleadings, and not simply incorporate the trial court judgment.
Headnote:
Judgment - Appellate Court - The appellate court failed to independently consider the evidence and simply incorporated the trial court judgment, leading to the setting aside of the judgment and remand for fresh disposal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellate court incorporated the trial court judgment without independently considering the evidence, leading to the appeal being set aside and remanded for fresh disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court failed to apply its mind independently to the pleadings and evidence, and simply incorporated the trial court judgment, leading to the setting aside of the judgment and remand for fresh disposal.
Issues: Failure of the appellate court to independently consider the evidence and pleadings, and the need for fresh disposal of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Appellate courts should independently consider the evidence and pleadings, and not simply incorporate the trial court judgment. Failure to do so may lead to the setting aside of the judgment and remand for fresh disposal.
Final Decision: The decree and judgment of the appellate court were set aside, and the appeal was remanded for fresh disposal.
1. It is rather regrettable that the learned District Judge has done nothing else in effect but incorporating the judgment of the trial court for about 21/2 pages and then disposed of the appeal before him without even considering the material evidence on record.
2. It is desirable that I point out to the subordinate courts especially the courts hearing appeals, to apply their mind to the pleadings and state the facts in their own way. From some of the appeals that have come up before me, I find that there is a very regrettable practice of some of the lower appellate courts simply incorporating some of the paragraphs of the trial court judgment in extenso as mentioning the facts of the matters arising for decision. This is not the way in which the appellate court should consider an appeal. Such a practice tends to create an impression that some of the lower appellate courts do not apply their mind independently to the pleadings.
3. In this case, in particular, after incorporating in verbatim some of the paragraphs of the trial court judgment, the learned judge has considered the point in Para.3 in about half-a-dozen lines and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. The appellate court has not cared to advert to the evidence or even as to the nature of the evidence that has been let in this case and more so in a very important case where the paternity of a person is in question.
4. With these observations, the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge are set aside and the appeal remanded to that court for fresh disposal in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The appellant is entitled to get a refund of the court fees paid in this court in the Second Appeal and costs of this appeal will abide and be provided for in fresh decree to be passed. Remanded.
